Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gudrun Schwarzer
and
Dominic W. Massaro
Two face identification experiments were carried out to study whether and how children
(5-year-olds) and adults integrate single facial features to identify faces. Using the paradigm
of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception each experiment used the same expanded factori-
al design, with three levels of eyes variations crossed with three levels of mouth variations as
well as their corresponding half-face conditions. In Experiment 1, an integration of facial fea-
tures was observed in adults only. But, in adjusting the salience of the features varied, the
results of Experiment 2 indicate that children and adults evaluated and integrated informa-
tion from both features to identify a face. A weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception fit
the judgments significantly better than a Single Channel Model and questions previous
claims of holistic face processing. Although no developmental differences in the stage of the
integration of facial information were observable, differences between children and adults
appeared in the information used for face identification. © 2001 Academic Press
Key Words: face perception; information processing; perceptual development.
139
0022-0965/01 $35.00
Copyright © 2001 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
140 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
indicating that the individual face parts were encoded independently of the other
features and their configuration. Nevertheless, the authors emphasized the inter-
action between featural and configurational information from a face because their
results also showed that alterations in facial configurations interfered with the
retrieval of facial features, whereas this interference did not appear with inverted
faces or nonface stimuli. Thus, for adults, current research suggests that upright
faces are processed more holistically than inverted faces or other nonface stimuli.
One issue concerns the diagnosis of holistic processing in the commonly used
restricted classification task (Ashkenasy & Odom, 1982). The authors proved
that the putative holistic classifications could be the result of not finding an exact
match on the dimension young children focused on. Indeed, Ashkenasy and
Odom (1982) found that young children focused on single visual dimensions,
usually the dimension containing the most stimulus variability or distinctiveness
(see also Odom & Guzman, 1972). In a differential sensitivity account of cogni-
tive development, Cook and Odom (1992) explicated that what changes across
development is not the processing mode—from holistic to analytic—but the
information’s relative position in hierarchies of perceptual sensitivity.
Performance is more accurate in problems that require use of dimensions that are
higher in perceptual salience than in problems that require use of dimensions
lower in salience. Salience can change with prior experience with the dimension
that is perceived and the way the dimension is physically represented in the envi-
ronment.
An important concern is that the diagnosis of holistic processing in children
has analyzed average results and ignored individual differences. When individual
results are analyzed in the context of the restricted classification task paradigm or
a concept-learning task, children and also adults have a strong bias to use just a
single dimension to make their judgments (e.g., Schwarzer, 1997; Thompson,
1994; Ward, Vela, & Hass, 1990; Wilkening & Lange, 1989).
Another line of research explored the nature of perception in preschool chil-
dren and adults during the earliest moments of visual processing (Thompson &
Massaro, 1989). In contrast to the mentioned restricted classification or concept
learning tasks, the goal was to investigate perceptual processing while minimiz-
ing processes of postperceptual decision making. The experimental test was car-
ried out within the paradigm of a pattern recognition situation and mathematical
model testing within the context of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception
(explained in detail below). The general logic of these experiments is to manipu-
late the features of a multidimensional stimulus independently of one another and
to measure the rule of their joint influence on the performance of interest. In the
study by Thompson and Massaro (1989) the children’s and adults’ judgments
were best described by the predictions of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception.
The model predicts that children and adults encode (evaluate) single features
independently and combine them during a second multiplicative operation.
Independent encoding of features is consistent with analytic processing rather
than holistic processing. The role of individual features in the conceptualization
of holistic processing—if they have any role—is only secondary and processing
of the whole stimulus cannot be reduced to processing of separate features (see
Kemler Nelson, 1989).
In sum, previous studies on visual nonfacial processing concerning the putative
holistic processing in children showed that children, like adults, indeed have
access to single visual features and therefore their processing modes can be
named as analytical.
FACE PROCESSING 143
design, six half-face conditions were presented. The half-face conditions dis-
played only the three levels of the upper and the three levels of the lower halves
of the stimulus faces. The variations of the eyes (including their covariates) and
mouth features were varied as can be seen in Fig. 1.1
The eyes, eyebrows and the height of the forehead were varied in the upper face.
As is shown in Fig. 1 (comparing the faces within each column), the eyes varied
from straight gaze, narrow eyebrows, and a long forehead (Level 3 at the bottom of
each column) to a gaze toward the left corner, wider eyebrows, and a shorter fore-
head (Level 1 at the top of each column). Variations of the mouth in terms of its
width comprised the second factor. The mouth varied from a small mouth (Level 1
at the left side of each row) to a wide mouth (Level 3 at the right side of each row).
In order to use the 15 faces (9 whole faces plus 6 face-halves) in the context of
a face identification task we defined two prototypical faces. These faces con-
tained the extreme levels on both features, eyes (and their covariates) and mouth.
One prototype had eyes with a straight gaze, a long forehead, narrow eyebrows,
and a wide mouth (prototype with Level 3 for the eyes and Level 3 for the mouth;
see the face at the right corner at the bottom). The contrasting prototype had eyes
which look to the left corner, a short forehead, wider eyebrows, and a small
mouth (prototype with Level 1 for the eyes and Level 1 for the mouth, see the face
at the left corner at the top). We named these prototypes Bob (1,1) and John (3,3).
The participants had been familiarized with these prototypes and the prototypes
were present during the entire experiment.
Within the context of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception, it is assumed that
participants evaluate the information from each source (i.e., the varied features)
according to the degree of match to the given prototypes. At the feature evalua-
tion stage, each physical input is transformed to a psychological value and is rep-
resented in the model equations in lowercase (e.g., if Ei represents the eyes infor-
mation, Ei would be transformed to ei, the degree to which the eyes variations
support the alternative “Bob”). An important assumption is that the evaluation of
a particular feature occurs independently of the presence or absence of other fea-
tures and their information value. With just two alternatives, Bob (B) and John (J),
we can make the assumption that the degree to which the eyes variations (includ-
ing their covariates) support alternative J is 1 − ei (Massaro & Friedman, 1990).
Feature evaluation occurs analogously for the mouth variations, Mj.
The evaluation stage is followed by the integration stage. Feature integration
consists of a multiplicative combination of the feature values supporting a given
alternative. If ei and mj are the values supporting the alternative B, then the total
support, M(B), for the alternative B would be given by the product of ei and mj:
M(B) = eimj.
The third stage within the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception is decision,
which uses a relative goodness rule (Massaro & Friedman, 1990) to give the
1
We thank Dr. N. Troje for constructing and providing the faces.
FACE PROCESSING 145
FIG. 1. Stimulus faces used in Experiment 1. The four faces displaying the maximum feature
variations (at the corners of the figure) as well as faces displaying “neutral” variations (in the mid-
dle of the figure). The prototype “Bob” is the face at the left corner at the top and the prototype
“John” is the face at the right corner at the bottom. The half-face conditions displayed only the
upper or lower half of the stimulus face. The reader can cover half of the face to experience these
conditions.
relative degree of support for each of the test alternatives. In the two-alterna-
tive choice task, the probability of a Bob choice, P(B), is equal to
P(BⱍEiMj) = M(B)/[M(B) + M(J)],
where P(BⱍEi,Mj) is the predicted choice given stimulus Ei, Mj. The Fuzzy
Logical Model of Perception requires three free parameters for the eyes variations
and three for the mouth variations. The parameters represent the degree to which
these features match those in the Bob and John prototypes.
146 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants. Two age groups participated in the experiment. One group was
composed of 10 5-year-old children. Six of them were girls, and four were boys.
Their ages ranged from 5 years, 0 months to 5 years, 6 months (mean age = 5,2)
and the children came from middle to upper middle-class families. Twenty-three
148 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
students (mean age: 20 years; age range: 18–24) from the undergraduate psy-
chology subject pool at the University of California, Santa Cruz, made up the
adult group. All adults had normal, or corrected-to-normal, visual acuity. The
children were free of any known visual impairments.
Stimuli and apparatus. The nine stimulus faces of the experiment depicted in
Fig. 1 were constructed at the Max-Planck-Institut for Biological Cybernetics in
Tübingen, Germany, using the method of the correspondence-based representa-
tion of faces developed by Vetter and Troje (1997), which allowed for the con-
struction of continua along facial features. The four faces at the corners of Fig. 1
display the maximum variations of the features eyes (and their covariates) and
mouth. The faces in the middle row and column display neutral variations of the
features. The prototype “Bob” is the face at the left corner at the top and the pro-
totype “John” is the face at the right corner at the bottom. In addition to the nine
whole faces we constructed six face halves displaying only the three levels of the
upper and the three levels of the lower halves of the stimulus faces.
The experimental control programs used to run the experiment and collect par-
ticipant data (adults’ only) were implemented on a Silicon Graphics 4D/Crimson
Reality workstation running under the IRIX 5.3 operating system, the stimulus
faces were displayed to the participants on 12-in. (30.48 cm) NEC Model C12-
202A color monitors, and participants’ responses were collected on TV 950 video
display terminals (VDTs) and their associated keyboards. Data analyses were per-
formed on the same Silicon Graphics workstation using FORTRAN 77 data
analysis routines. To present this experiment at a preschool, the stimulus faces
were recorded on VHS tape so that the faces could be presented via a video
recorder. The data of the children’s group were collected manually.
Procedure. All participants were tested in a quiet location, with the experi-
menter present. They were seated in front of the computer monitors. Children
were tested in a research van parked outside of a day care center, and adults were
tested in a laboratory. Children and adults were required to respond to each stim-
ulus face either with Bob or John. Adults gave their response by pressing a cor-
respondingly labeled button on either the left or right edge of the VDT keyboard.
To minimize the effect of memory performance, pictures of the prototypes Bob
and John were fastened next to the response buttons. Children responded either
verbally (Bob or John) or by pointing to pictures of Bob and John that were fas-
tened beneath the monitor.
After a short title sequence, the control program began displaying the individ-
ual faces on the monitor. The faces were displayed for 1500 ms each. They were
sized to fill the vertical dimension of the 12-in. (30.48-cm) monitor screens (15
cm high) and were viewed at a distance of about 45 cm. No visual fixation point
was provided.
Each experimental session included a familiarization phase where the proto-
typical faces of Bob and John were presented 15 times each, 10 practice trials,
and 120 stimulus trials; the stimulus trials were selected from the stimulus set
according to a random selection without a replacement protocol, which resulted
FACE PROCESSING 149
in each stimulus face being displayed 8 times per session (not including 15 famil-
iarization trials and 10 practice trials). Children and adults were involved in two
experimental sessions and so saw each stimulus face 16 times. In the adult group
the two experimental sessions were separated by a 5-min rest period during the
same day. For the children the two sessions were divided over two following
days. Each session per day was also divided into four subsessions where the chil-
dren had to identify 30 stimulus trials.
FIG. 2. (a) Predicted (lines) and observed [points; P(Bob)] identification judgments in the adults
in Experiment 1. Predictions are for the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. (b) Observed [points;
P(Bob)] identification judgments in the children in Experiment 1 as a function of the eyes and mouth
variations.
FACE PROCESSING 151
fit than did the Single Channel Model, F(1, 22) = 4.86, p < .05. Thus, the good fit
of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception, which assumes independence at the
feature evaluation stage, provides evidence against holistic models. If each com-
bination of features is unique—as assumed by the holistic encoding approach—
then a model assuming independence between features should fail. The fact that
the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception does not fail is therefore evidence against
holistic processing. Furthermore, the results of the present experiment showed
developmental differences in terms of the facial information used by children and
adults. Whereas the children nearly exclusively focused on the mouth of a whole
face, the adults took both the mouth and eyes into account. The children might
have been influenced exclusively by the mouth of the faces because they associat-
ed John’s mouth with a smiling mouth and managed the whole-face task by look-
ing for just the smiling face.
These results on the differences between children and adults in terms of the
facial information used fit nicely into Cunningham and Odom’s (1986) study on
differential salience of facial features in children’s perception of affective expres-
sion. Their results showed that 5- to 11-year-old children were more likely to
evaluate and remember information from the mouth region first and the eye
region second.
Experiment 1 did not allow to test different mathematical models of children’s
face identification capabilities because of the age related differences in using
facial information. Therefore, in Experiment 2 we changed the salience pattern of
the face stimuli to allow for model tests in children.
EXPERIMENT 2
To accomplish the goal to compare children’s and adults’ information process-
ing of faces by means of mathematical model testing, in Experiment 2, we mod-
ified some of the experimental conditions of Experiment 1 to get the children to
consider both facial features, eyes and mouth. We adjusted the salience of eyes
and mouth information given in the faces to increase the likelihood that the eyes
will be evaluated in the children as well. Salience is considered a characteristic of
the relative distinctiveness of the properties in stimulus arrays (Cunningham &
Odom, 1978). In Experiment 2, we decreased the salience of the mouth—the
most influential feature in the children’s responses observed in Experiment 1.
According to Ashkenasy and Odom (1982), we decreased the distinctiveness-
based salience of the mouth by decreasing the value differences of the mouth to
yield lower levels of sensitivity to these mouth differences. In addition, we
decreased the overall size of the stimulus faces to make sure that the whole face
could be projected on the fovea.
Method
Participants. There were 11 children from middle- to upper middle-class
families participants, 6 girls and 5 boys, ranging in age from 5 years, 4 months
to 5 years, 11 months (mean age: 5 years, 8 months). All children were attend-
FACE PROCESSING 153
ing a kindergarten group at the time of testing. The 13 adults were students at
the University of California, Santa Cruz, 6 females and 7 males (mean age: 20
years; age range: 18–22). Participants had normal visual acuity, with or without
correction.
Stimuli. The stimuli were the same as in Experiment 1 with the following
exceptions. (1) To decrease the distinctiveness-based salience of the variable
mouth we increased the similarity of mouth Level 1 and 3 to Level 2 as can be
seen in Fig. 3. The variations of the eyes remained the same as in Experiment 1.
The stimulus faces of Experiment 2 consisted of nine new faces plus the corre-
sponding six face halves. We expected that in decreasing the distinctiveness-
based salience of the mouth we would increase the relative salience of the eyes
and therefore increase children’s sensitivity to the eyes variable. (2) To facilitate
the identification of Bob and John in the familiarization phase we constructed
new facial prototypes for Bob and John in which the features—mouth and eyes—
were exaggerated (see the faces of the separated right column of Fig. 3). The pro-
totypes were also shown on the pictures which were used by the participants to
give their responses during the test phase, but they were not used as test stimuli.
The test faces were the nine faces depicted in Fig. 3 plus the corresponding six
FIG. 3. Stimulus faces of Experiment 2. The four faces displaying the maximum feature variations
(at the corners of the figure) as well as faces displaying “neutral” variations. The prototype “Bob” is
the face at the top of the separated right column and the prototype “John” is the face at the bottom of
this right column. The half-face conditions displayed only the upper or lower half of the stimulus face.
154 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
FIG. 4. Predicted (lines) and observed [points; P(Bob)] identification judgments in the children
(a) and adults (b) in Experiment 2. Predictions are for a weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of
Perception.
FACE PROCESSING 155
face- halves. (3) We decreased the overall size of the faces (9 cm high) to encour-
age the participants’ consideration of both features varied. We expected that
smaller faces increase the probability that people look at the whole face.
Apparatus and procedure. These were the same as those used in Experiment 1.
In Experiment 2, we asked the participants to judge whether the stimulus face is
more or less similar to Bob or John. Although the two prototypes (Bob and John)
were never presented as stimuli, we named this process “identification”—as we
did in Experiment 1.
than the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. The equation for the weight-
ed Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception is
fi(b) ⫽ wfi(h) ⫹ .5(1 ⫺ w),
where fi(b) is the feature value on trials of the whole-face conditions and wfi(h) is
the feature value on trials of the half-face condition. The w is a free parameter
indicating the relative amount of influence on trials of the whole-face conditions
relative to the half-face condition. Given the 3X3 expanded factorial design, in
the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception six free parameters are necessary
to fit the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception to the 15 conditions. In the weight-
ed Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception, given the additional weight parameter
seven free parameters are necessary.
The results of the children’s group confirmed our expectations that the weight-
ed Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception might be better able to describe the results
than the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception as well as the Single Channel
Model. In comparison to the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception and the
Single Channel Model, the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception yielded
the best fit of the data. This can be seen in the generally lower RMSDs of the
weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. The RMSDs of the weighted Fuzzy
Logical Model of Perception ranged between .01 to .10, with an average RMSD
of .06 and a fit of the mean participant data of .04. The RSMDs of the simple
Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception and the Single Channel Model were signifi-
cantly higher, F(2, 20) = 5.77, p < .01, (simple Fuzzy Logical Model of
Perception’s RMSD’s ranged from .02 to .13, with an average RMSD of .07 and
a fit of the mean participant data of .06, Single Channel Model’s RMSDs ranged
from .04 to .12, with an average RMSD of .08 and a fit of the mean participant of
.04). Thus, the good fit of the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception
(which can be seen by comparing the points and corresponding lines in Fig. 4a)
implicates the analytic as well as integrative character of the processing mode in
children’s face identification performance.
In contrast to the children, the adults were more influenced by the upper part
of the face in the whole-face conditions. We therefore contrasted in the adults’
group the corresponding weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception with the
Single Channel Model and the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. As for
the children, the RMSDs of the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception
were significantly lower than those of the simple Fuzzy Logical Model of
Perception and the SCM, F(2, 24) = 5.19, p < .01, (weighted Fuzzy Logical
Model of Perception RMSDs ranged between .03 to .13 with an average RMSD
of .07 and a fit of the mean participant of .03, whereas the simple Fuzzy Logical
Model of Perception ranged from .03 to .15 with an average RMSD of .1 and a
fit of the mean participant of .07 and the Single Channel Model RMSDs ranged
from .04 to .13 with an average RMSD of .09 and a fit of the mean participant of
.06). The good fit of the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception in the
adults is demonstrated in Fig. 4b in that the predictions of the weighted Fuzzy
FACE PROCESSING 157
Logical Model of Perception (see lines) did reasonably well in capturing the
trends in the data (see points).
In sum, the best fit of the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception impli-
cates that children’s face identification processing—like adults’—is based on the
independent evaluation of single facial features and can be named as analytic.
Taking the age-specific use of information into account, children’s processing
modes can also be described by a multiplicative integration of the facial features.
Although differences in the influence of the information sources were observed
in Experiments 1 and 2, there seem to be no differences in the face identification
processing between children and adults.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The presented experiments proved successful in addressing the issues of how
two facial features are evaluated and integrated to achieve the identification of
a face. In adults as well as in children (see Experiment 2) both eyes and mouth
variations were effective in changing the judgment from the identification of
one face (Bob) to another face (John). These results were well described by the
Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception the weighted Fuzzy Logical Model of
Perception respectively relative to the poorer description of the Single Channel
Model. Thus, this is evidence for analytic face processing in children and
adults.
Given the present results that the Single Channel Model provided a poorer pre-
diction of our empirical data than the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception, an
important question to consider is whether cases could be identified where the
Single Channel Model provides a better fit to the data than the Fuzzy Logical
Model of Perception. It has been claimed that when a face is turned upside down,
the integrative face processing strategy is inhibited, forcing a more analytic pro-
cessing strategy (e.g., Farah, Tanaka, Wilson, & Drain, 1995; Farah, Wilson,
Drain, & Tanaka, 1998; Tanaka & Farah, 1993). If this is true, the Single Channel
Model should provide a better account of the faces in an inverted condition than
the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. However, previous data already showed
that changing the information on a face—as you would do in presenting the faces
upside down—did not change the fit of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception
(e.g., Massaro, 1998; Massaro & Cohen, 1996). For example, Massaro and
Cohen (1996) examined whether the orientation of the face influences speech
perception. Inverting the face reduced the influence of visible speech, but the
results with both the upright and inverted faces were adequately described by the
Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. The observed differences between the pro-
cessing of the upright and inverted faces were due to the amount of visible infor-
mation but inverting the faces did not change the nature of the information pro-
cessing. Thus, we might also expect that the amount of information on the faces
will be reduced in a face identification situation but with regard to the informa-
tion processing the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception will do as well with
inverted faces.
158 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
As already argued, the good fit of the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception
challenges the conclusion of holistic face processing based on approaches with-
out any formal model testing. Whereas our results illustrated the independent
evaluation of facial features which stands for an analytic processing, Tanaka
and Farah (1993), Tanaka et al. (1998), Baenninger (1994), and Carey (1996)
postulated holistic face processing in children and adults in terms of holistic
encoding and configurational encoding. One possible explanation for the
results of the present study in comparison to the results of previous results
showing holistic processing in children and adults could lie in the different
number of target faces used in the different studies. Whereas in our study only
two target faces (Bob and John) were used previous face recognition studies
have used multiple target faces. Possibly, the use of only two target faces
encourage an analytic processing strategy because it is easier to focus on one
or two discriminating features when there are only two alternatives in the
response set. Holistic processing may be more likely to be employed in the sit-
uation of multiple target faces where the discriminating features are less appar-
ent. This conjecture is open to experimental test. In speech emotion perception,
the number of test and response alternatives does not diminish the advantage
of the description given by the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception. Another
explanation for the difference between the present results and the previous ones
showing holistic face processing could be the fact that the target faces in the
previous studies were not present when the participant was deciding on the
identity of each stimulus face and he or she could only compare the target face
to a “blurry” memory representation. However, the stimulus faces were pre-
sented in our study for just 1500 ms so that a direct and nearly simultaneous
comparison of stimulus and target faces—which could possibly induce analyt-
ic processing—could not take place.
Our results confirm and extend current studies concerning children’s prefer-
ence to focus on single facial features when categorizing faces in comparison to
adults who took more than one feature into account (Pedelty, Levine, & Shevell,
1985; Schwarzer, 2000; Schwarzer & Korell, in press). However, with the appro-
priate balance in feature salience, both children and adults not only take more
than one feature into account but they integrate these features by using a multi-
plicative algorithm.
The present results are also consistent with the corresponding studies from the
nonfacial visual domain. Different tasks from the present one (Ashkenasy &
Odom, 1982; Thompson, 1994; Ward, Vela, & Hass, 1990; Wilkening & Lange,
1989) as well as comparable tasks (e.g., Thompson & Massaro, 1989) revealed the
analytic and integrative nature of processing. Given the success of the Fuzzy
Logical Model of Perception across a wide range of empirical domains, its suc-
cess in the present studies might not be too surprising. The Fuzzy Logical Model
of Perception has provided an adequate description of the evaluation and integra-
tion of sources of information in reading letters and words, in sentence process-
ing, in the visual perception of depth, in memory retrieval, and in cognitive deci-
FACE PROCESSING 159
sion making (Massaro, 1998). It is also noteworthy that most of its success has
emerged in the description of speech perception (e.g., Massaro, 1987a; Massaro
& Burke, 1991). There has been a long tradition of belief that speech perception
is somehow specialized and not amenable to a description grounded in prototypi-
cal pattern recognition processes. This belief parallels the assumption of many that
the perception of faces is also specialized (see for an overview Bruce &
Humphreys, 1994). However, studies using the Fuzzy Logical Model of
Perception approach in the speech domain have weakened the speech-is-special
viewpoint (Massaro, 1987a, 1987b, 1998). We would predict the same for face
identification.
What do the current results tell us about the development of face identification
processing? Developmental changes could theoretically exist at any of the three
stages of processing: evaluation, integration, and decision. Given the fit of the
Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception to the children’s and adults’ data, however,
the results of the presented experiments provide evidence for developmental dif-
ferences only at evaluation. That means that differences in the evaluation process
appear to be due to differences in the information made available by the percep-
tual and memory system. Our results showed those differences between 5-year-
old children and adults in that in Experiment 1 and 2 children used the informa-
tion on the mouth of the faces more than adults did. Adults, by contrast were
more influenced by the eyes of the faces as can be seen in Experiment 2.
However, it would be oversimplified to conclude from our studies that in face
processing children usually prefer information on the mouth of the face and
adults usually prefer information on the eyes of a face. These differences seem
to depend not simply on the age but on differential salience of the features (see
Ashkenasy & Odom, 1982; Cook & Odom, 1992). The influence of the salience
of the features was observable in the way children changed their use of informa-
tion between Experiments 1 and 2. While, in terms of Cook and Odom (1992),
the predisposed salience of the mouth information (the effects that perceptual
experience with the mouth of a face has on the sensitivity of the perceptual sys-
tem) was higher than that of the eyes information and their covariates (eyebrows
and forehead) in Experiment 2, the salience of the mouth was reduced along with
the overall size of the faces, which increased the relative salience of the eyes and
their covariates and made them more informative.
Moreover, Experiment 2 showed that no developmental changes exist at the
stage of the integration of information from eyes and mouth. Rather, information
integration appears to occur in the same manner for children and adults: For both
age groups, the two sources of information are integrated by a multiplicative algo-
rithm.
Thus, in line with Cook and Odom’s (1992) differential-sensitivity account of
cognitive processing (see also Odom & Guzman, 1972), room for the develop-
ment of facial processing is mainly given in terms of facial information used
rather than in terms of information processing. As children become more expe-
rienced with the world around them, they learn what information on a face is
160 SCHWARZER AND MASSARO
useful. How they use this information to respond to their environment, however,
does not change.
REFERENCES
Aschkenasy, J. R., & Odom, R. D. (1982). Classification and perceptual development: Exploring
issues about integrality and differential sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
34, 435–448.
Baenninger, M. A. (1994). The development of face recognition: Featural or configural processing.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 377–396.
Bruce, V., & Humphreys, G. W. (1994). Recognizing objects and faces. Visual Cognition, 1, 141–180.
Bushnell, I. W. (1982). Discrimination of faces by young infants. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 33, 298–308.
Bushnell, I. W., Sai, F., & Mullin, J. T. (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 3–15.
Carey, S. (1996). Perceptual classification and expertise. In R. Gelman & T. Kit-Fong Au (Eds.),
Perceptual and cognitive development (pp. 49–69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by chil-
dren? Visual Cognition, 1, 253–274.
Chandler, J. P. (1969). Subroutine STEPIT finds local minima of a smooth function of several param-
eters. Behavioral Science, 14, 81–82.
Cook, G. L., & Odom, R. D. (1992). Perception of multidimensional stimuli: A differential-sensitivi-
ty account of cognitive processing and development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
54, 213–249.
Cunningham, J. G., & Odom, R. D. (1978). The role of perceptual salience in the development of
analysis and synthesis process. Child Development, 49, 815–823.
Cunningham, J. G., & Odom, R. D. (1986). Differential salience of facial features in children’s per-
ception of affective expression. Child Development, 57, 136–142.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
Farah, M. J., Tanaka, J. W., & Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628–634.
Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is special about face perception.
Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
Flin, R., & Dziurawiec, S. (1989). Developmental factors in face processing. In A. W. Young & H.
D. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of research on face processing (pp. 335–378). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1989). The nature and occurrence of holistic processing. In B. E. Shepp & S.
Ballesteros (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 357–386). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Massaro, D. W. (1987a). Speech perception by eye and ear: A paradigm for psychological inquiry.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Massaro, D. W. (1987b). Categorical partition: A fuzzy logical model of categorization behavior. In
S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 254–283). New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Massaro, D. W. (1998). Perceiving talking faces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Massaro, D. W., & Burke, D. (1991). Perceptual development and auditory backward recognition
masking. Developmental Psychology, 27, 85–96.
Massaro, D. W., & Cohen, M. M. (1996). Perceiving speech from inverted faces. Perception &
Psychophysics, 58, 1047–1065.
Massaro, D. W., & Friedman, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information.
Psychological Review, 97, 225–252.
FACE PROCESSING 161